Vanderzyden

Hi Bill,

I appreciate the pointed question. Thanks for asking.

One of his attributes is that he is the "I AM THAT WHICH I AM". The primordial God is the Only Thing. "Thingness", or existence itself, is completely contained within God. He is a self-conscious person, as Kenny wrote. As such, he is fully aware that he is the only thing in existence. He is, as Aristotle deduced, the Unmoved Mover.

God simply IS. Were it hypothetically necessary for him to reflect upon the the "prospect" of his singular existence, it would seem wholly sufficient for him to be simply aware of his singular existence. Existence has no other context, since the concept of creation has not been actualized.

Again, this is not circular reasoning, since it is actually the case that no reflection is required for something that is innate, absolute knowledge. To take the hypothetical one step further, we can see that the extrinsic "evidence" would be that no other thing had "interacted" with God for all eternity. Interaction, in the context of an external relationship, is not yet possible, since creation is as yet only a proposition in his mind. God has not yet created another thing. There is no other element, natural or otherwise. This also means there are no other beings (no persons). Therefore, he must necessarily be alone.

Note: An analogy for humans would be the consideration that no other human can possibly know what another sentient being is thinking. In that sense, we are "alone" with our thoughts. (Of course, the theist knows that God knows her thoughts.)


John

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. It certainly would support why a theist might accept axiomatically that God is "who am", but unfortunately, it doesn't really address the question of how God knows that he is the absolute except to say, "he just does."

Again, that's a perfectly acceptable answer for the theist who wants to justify her axiomatic acceptance of God's primacy of existence, but it speaks nothing to God's knowledge of his primacy.

Oh, and interestingly enough, since you posit a self-conscious being as a lone existent, it moves me to ask how a being can be self-conscious if there is nothing but self from which it might otherwise distinguish itself? In other words, how could the primordial god be "self"-conscious (self-aware) if there were nothing but self around? There would be no distinction between "self" and "non-self" as there would be NO non-self. I wouldn't think that such a being could be self-conscious; it would simply BE.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Bumble Bee Tuna

So...

How does God know he is alone?

God knows he's alone because he is the concept of existence.

So...How does God know he is the concept of existence?

This chain of questioning can continue as long as you desire. In the end, God will have to assume something is true instead of knowing it.

-B

Amos

Sorry, I thought you knew that the New Jerusalem is a metaphor for heaven.

Omniscience to make science possible?

Amos

Is it not the case that God is the essence of existence after which ideas are conceived to gain ascent in existence?

The difference is that the concept has been conceived while the essence must exist prior to conception.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I have trouble reading your posts, Amos. It seems wherever I see your posts, all I see is a slew of philosophic buzzwords that apparently explain things in your mind but do absolutely nothing in mine. Basically what comes to mind when I read you is "What the hell is he talking about?". Granted, I'm not an expert in discussing metaphysical concepts but I honestly have no idea what you just said, even after reading it multiple times.

Anyone care to translate for me?

I apologize if this seems like an attack, it is not intended as such. I just honestly can never understand you. Until now, sure I could just ignore your posts and move on but unfortunately now that you have responded directly to me I find myself in a dilemma. How to debate with someone who doesn't make any sense to me?

-B

beliefisbunk

Just the theistic approach of getting out of questions/debates - changing the subject, going on about something with absolutely no rationality in hopes that it will suffice to the eyes of all readers.

No, there is no such thing as a profound theist.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: beliefisbunk ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Bleah...

Of course there is; there are many. Read Kant, Newton, Galileo, Spong, Tillich, Polkinghorne, Lewis, Plantinga, or any of a slew of others.

Amos certainly has "his own language," but that doesn't mean he's trying to evade anyone's questions. From my point of view, it seems that Amos regards God as approaching complete ineffability. How can one attempt to explain the intellectually inexplicable without recourse to language that stresses emotion rather than reason? You and I might not find it particularly compelling, but I don't think that's any reason to deride Amos.

Profundity can be a purely poetic as well as noetic quality. (how's that for profound!) .

My apologies, Amos, if I've misstated your intentions and you really are just pulling our collective chains...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

beliefisbunk

When I say a profound theist, I mean someone who is profound for their theist thinking, not their personal endeavors.

I have yet to know - or converse with - a theist who has caused my jaw to drop for such reason and innovation. That day has not come. The odds are very good that day will never come.

Vanderzyden

Bill,

You will recall that your first question to me was:

To which I replied, in essence:

-- The primordial God is the Only Thing. "Thingness", or existence itself, is completely contained within God.
-- Existence has no other context, since the concept of creation has not been actualized.
-- God has not yet created another thing. There is no other element, natural or otherwise. This also means there are no other beings (no persons).

Therefore, the primordial God must necessarily be alone.

You go on to ask:

Why do you impose a requirement to "distinguish self from non-self"? Again, nothing else exists for the primordial God. As you suggest, and I previously wrote, God simply IS. He is a person, he has knowledge of his person (just as you and I do). Consciousness is its own justification. Just try proving that you have a mind to someone other than yourself.

Tell me, Bill, when you are alone in a room, do you believe strongly that you exist? Of course you do. If you were the last man standing on earth, would you still be self-conscious? Absolutely. If all of your senses were suddenly disabled, would you not still have your cognitive faculties? Yes, indeed. How much more, then, is the Creator self-aware. Unless you deny him the ability to cogitate, you must admit his self-consciousness. Agreed?

The topic of the thread is, "How does God know he's omniscient?". For simplicity, I am asking that we consider God when he was alone, before he created anything else. But that is only one part of my rationale, and it is a temporary restriction. Perhaps you did not read my detailed argument on page 1. Summarizing, God:

(a) is eternal
(b) forgets nothing
(c) knows himself entirely

For our present purposes, we consider the state in which:

(d) God is alone

We may then draw the conclusion:

(e) Therefore, God is omniscient, knowing all truths.

Note (from my previous argument): The knowledge in premise (c) is held with complete certainty. As such, God is incapable of belief. His knowledge is, therefore, absolute.

I am not justifying God's existence; rather, I presume it upon the basis of a modified Kalam cosmological argument and Aristotelian metaphysics. If God is eternally alone, and maintains absolute knowledge of himself (which includes his propositions), then it follows that he is knows all truths that may be known (omniscience).

One more thing before I close. Forgive me if I am in error, but I notice, in your response to Amos, that you harbor what seems to be a prejudice:

Please indicate what is "emotional" in the development of my argument. Do you think Alvin Plantiga is "emotional"? On what basis?

[Genuine] faith does not feed on thin air but on facts.

--Os Guinness



John

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>